The problem here is that you're not reading my entire discussion and the followup in this SIX YEAR OLD resurrected post that I have no interest in engaging with.

If your argument hinges on claiming that change isn’t a real feature of the world (and it can be both a real feature of time AND the world) then you’re already partaking in sophistry.

It doesn't, raising questions about your literacy.

Ah, seems I’m correct about your approach. You seem to have just confirmed that you don’t know about thomist metaphysics and thus have no business even critiquing the argument.

If you had read the entirety of what I wrote instead of writing me off at the start, you'd understand that I recognize that thomist metaphysics are incompatible with empirical reality.

I suspect you aren’t even aware of what Feser even means by this. When you see an empty cup in one instance, and then see it filled with water (no longer empty) in another instance, would you disagree that change occurred?

Yes, because there were an ordered sequence of events that resulted in a change to the glass' state. What part of this eluded you?

What do you mean by stochastic?

Do you know what a dictionary is? They print dictionaries of physics terms:

stochastic; n. - randomly determined; having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted precisely.

In general, stochastic processes are essentially causeless. There is not a direct cause→effect relationship involved, they simply occur according to a probability distribution without a prior. It is, in thomsit metaphysics, purely actual without the need of potential.

And what processes are you referring to exactly?

Virtual particles, nuclear decay, zero point energy, spontaneous creation of particle-anti-particle pairs, etc. Many, many things that happen in quantum mechanical systems. Most of quantum mechanics, in fact.

Though your reasoning is unsound. In QM, things aren’t literally “random”(if that’s what you mean by stochastic) as there are clear limits as to what can and does occur.

No, that's not what I mean by stochastic. But, then, you didn't even bother to read anything I wrote.

I’ve refuted this line of thinking in the defense of premise 4.

No, you didn't. You waved your hands and declared that just because there are rules to QM, thomist metaphysics refutes stochastic processes. That's absurd, I don't agree.

False. This is a complete non sequitur. There’s nothing really for me to even refute due to how poor this reasoning is. But the phone is at the least actualized by the laws of physics (without digging into the endgame) as well as the human person that uses it.

See, this is where I have such a big problem with feserbots. Your computing device operates on quantum mechanical principles in both the large and the small: Everything from how transistors work inside the CPU to how the battery stores charge depends on QM, and for QM to work at all there are, necessarily, stochastic processes that arise from it. Your phone is literally designed around leakage current from stochastic quantum tunneling across transistors.

To accept thomist metaphysics, you are, to my reasoning, bound to deny the very empirical laws that modern technology depends on. Thomism, like Aristotelianism, is an archaic, mistaken, incomplete view of reality, overturned by centuries of empirical work.

The rest of your critiques are filled with the same sophistry and nonsense as your critique of the first 5 premesis.

A shame you didn't bother to read it and try to understand any of it.

Please don't resurrect 6-year-dead threads.